by “our” he is referring to the Communist Party—
that it was capable of influencing and obtaining the vote of one-third of the members who voted in the Democratic Party slate or side of the ticket and because of that fact and because we were in a higher state of mobilization than the rest of the Democratic Party when primaries came along we could exercise a more direct influence in the primaries than anybody else because our members in the Washington Commonwealth Federation had a great zeal and a greater devotion to carrying out their objectives than the other Democrats who frequently relied upon making their decisions in the general election.
When asked the question why was it that the Communist Party was so interested in obtaining control of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, he replied:
Because we wanted to ultimately obtain political power for the Communist Party in the United States of America.
Did you observe efforts made by William Pennock and Tom Rabbitt, to get control of either the Democratic machinery, the machinery of the Democratic Party, or the machinery of the Progressive Party through the use of the Washington Pension Union?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I would say in a certain few districts in King County, probably one district in Snohomish County, legislative district in Grays Harbor County, that the nominees of the Democratic Party were certainly not people that the pension union had selected or had picked out but I think they were people the pension union supported because of their votes in the legislature and so on. The Commonwealth Federation was actually gone in my time. I don’t know what it did. I don’t know what its power was and what its influence was but for instance in the 35th District if Pennock was the Representative and Rabbitt was the Senator and they were both in the pension union they certainly had some influence there.
I am trying to think of the district in Snohomish, there are two legislative districts there, I think it was northern Snohomish County where I think there was a pension union member who was actually a member and elected to the legislative assembly and I think that was true in the district down in Grays Harbor County, but you take all of the eastern end of Washington, all the eastern side of Washington they certainly had no influence to speak of over there. They might have had a tiny bit of influence in one district in Spokane County, but in the great part, I would say in the great part of the State outside of those few areas I picked out and where the selections were actually people of their own membership, I don’t, I can’t see any actual picking or selecting of people that were put in. I can’t recall all of the people who were, but for instance the major State offices like Governor and United States Senator, Congressman, and so on, I couldn’t see any influence except in the First Congressional District where of course they could have been instrumental in the nomination and election of Hugh DeLacy in 1944 election, I think it was, but as to the other districts, John Coffee was in Congress a long time I think, even before the pension union was established, Charlie Levy was in the House.
Mr. Tavenner. Was Hugh DeLacy known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. NO.
Mr. Tavenner. He has been identified by both Barbara Hartle and Eugene Dennett. He was produced as a witness before the committee in Ohio in September of last year and he refused to answer any material questions relating to Communist Party affiliations, relying upon the fifth amendment as the reason for so doing.
Mr. O’Connell. Senator Neuberger wrote a chapter in a book published by Bob Allen called Our Fair City, and wrote the article in connection with the city of Seattle, and he gives me credit in that book, if I remember correctly, for having forced Hugh DeLacy on the Democratic Party in the State of Washington, but Hugh DeLacy had actually been nominated for Congress on the Democratic Party ticket before I ever went to the State of Washington.
He was actually the Democratic nominee.
Let me say, Mr. Neuberger also gives me credit for—Senator Neuberger—for taking over. He said I took over the Democratic organization and so on. I don’t think I did. I had served in the House with Senator Wallgren who later became Governor and Senator Magnuson, who was in the House, and I knew them well and Senator Mitchell, who was secretary to Senator Wallgren at that time, and who later became Senator and Congressman and all of that, and I think they were appreciative of the kind of job I had done out there, and so on.
Mr. Velde. Did you have any suspicion or inkling that Mr. Hugh DeLacy was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I couldn’t say, I wouldn’t want to say.
Mr. Velde. Why would you not want to say?
Mr. O’Connell. You see, I really didn’t get to know him. He was elected to Congress shortly after I came out there and then he came down here to Washington and then after his defeat for Congress he was only back in the State of Washington a short time and went to work, if I recall correctly, in the national office of the Progressive Party and was working outside the State of Washington so that my contact with DeLacy was not very great. I didn’t get to know him like the people that were out in the State day in and day out and were in the Democratic Party meetings.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, we have the situation where the Communist Party went deliberately about seizing the leadership and capturing the leadership in a very powerful political organization in the State of Washington, namely, the Washington Pension Union, and ahead of it the Washington Commonwealth Federation. It succeeded in capturing the leadership of it. It did it for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Communist Party.
Will you tell the committee whether or not the leadership of this group, the Washington Pension Union, was successful in influencing either of the parties of which you were secretary in any of its policy actions?
Mr. O’Connell. I think for instance, in the Democratic Party particularly by its organization and by its work and demands for improved pension legislation, they had tremendous influence on the Democratic Party. As a matter of fact the—I would say even on the Republican Party. In the 1945 session of the State legislature the actual legislation proposed by the pension union placing a $50 floor under old-age-pension grants and setting up a system of budget and what-not, the legislation which they actually introduced passed the State senate by, I think, a vote of 45 or 46 to nothing. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for it.
In the House I think it passed the same way probably 102 to 1 or 105 to 3 or something like that, it was almost unanimous. In that particular effect certainly they not only had influence with the Democratic Party but certainly in putting legislation on the books——
Mr. Tavenner. What influence did it have on the Progressive Party?
Mr. O’Connell. Of course we had no power. We had no officials of any kind.
Mr. Tavenner. Actually, wasn’t the leadership in the Washington Pension Union and the leadership in the Progressive Party practically the same?
Mr. O’Connell. The leadership?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, wasn’t there an overlapping leadership which made the two practically the same?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I wouldn’t say so. Actually, it is hard to put the picture in the pattern of that time, but the 1946 elections had been as we all recall quite disastrous to the Democrats, there was considerable dissension among some Democrats with President Truman, and there was a move from Democrats generally—I would say in the Progressive Party, as it existed particularly in 1948, the Progressive Party was not, did not have an officialdom or even a membership that you could say, “Well, this is identical with the Washington Pension Union.”
For instance, I never held any office in the Washington Pension Union of any kind—I was executive secretary—Russell Fluent, who had just finished a term as Democratic treasurer was the chairman of the Progressive Party—L. C. Hunterer, who was Democratic sheriff in Olympia in Thurston County, was a national committeeman—and the Democratic national committeewoman from eastern Washington, who later became the national committeewoman of the Progressive Party from the State of Washington. Leadership in many counties was a leadership that moved from the county chairman and others and moved over from the Democratic Party into the Progressive Party.
The leadership of the pension union, Pennock and Fisher and Nora McCoy, and others I recall there, if you consider Rabbitt——
Mr. Tavenner. What was Fisher’s first name?
Mr. O’Connell. Dr. C. H. Fisher. He had been president of Northern Washington Normal College, I think, at Bellingham.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, I hand you a photostatic copy of a document and I will ask you to examine it, please, and state whether you know what it is.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What is it?
Mr. O’Connell. As I understand, it purports to be a sort of a schedule or catalog of the Pacific Northwest Labor School for what they call its fall term of October 6 to December 12.
Mr. Tavenner. What year? 1947?
Mr. O’Connell. It apparently—I notice somebody made a notation up here, 1947, but it doesn’t appear.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence, and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 1” for identification purposes only, and made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Doyle. It is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. By reference to the exhibit it is noted that course No. 148, offered at this school, was entitled “Northwest Labor History” by John Daschbach, extension director, and William J. Pennock, president of the Washington Pension Union. Will you tell the committee, please, whether John Daschbach was known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. He was not.
Mr. Tavenner. He was not a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. He was not known to me to be a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show he has been identified by both Eugene Dennett and Barbara Hartle——
Mr. O’Connell. I think he was also a Smith Act defendant.
Mr. Tavenner. As a member of the party and he was a Smith Act defendant. He was a teacher at this school. It is observed here on the second page that a course on trade-union organizational problems was to be taught by a person by the name of J-a-c-k-i-n-s. What was his first name, Harvey?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall Jackins too well. Was he a member of the union, the Boeing union?
Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain which union.
Mr. O’Connell. I know there was a party by the name of Jackins and that he was a leader in some one of the unions out there and my best recollection is he was in the Boeing union.
Mr. Tavenner. We have testimony before our committee that Harvey Jackins taught at this school and I think the record should also show Harvey Jackins was identified as a member of the Communist Party by Elizabeth Boggs Cohen and Leonard Basil Wildman. He was cited for contempt of the House of Representatives for refusal to answer questions during the June 1954 hearings in Seattle and has been convicted by a Federal court.
Mr. O’Connell. In that connection I want to—I notice in that schedule that my name is listed as teaching a course in political——
Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Labor’s political role, 1948.
Mr. O’Connell. I never taught such a class or roll or schedule. Never appeared or anything else.
Mr. Tavenner. Well, you were enrolled as a teacher, were you not, in the labor school?
Mr. O’Connell. I was not. I never taught a class in the labor school, never appeared in the labor school.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your explanation of the advertising of the curriculum with you as a teacher?
Mr. O’Connell. My explanation is really easy. Mr. Daschbach got that schedule out and later called me and asked me if I would do it and I refused and told him I didn’t want to do it.
Mr. Tavenner. He did call you and you refused?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Why did you refuse?
Mr. O’Connell. Because I didn’t want to do it.
Mr. Tavenner. What was your reason for not wanting to do it?
Mr. O’Connell. Let me see what it was. If I remember correctly, my objection was to “tackle both ideological and organizational problems which labor must solve to gain its ends in 1948.”
And my particular objection, of course, was that I had never been involved, never was a member of a labor union or trade-union, and I didn’t, I couldn’t speak as a laboring man or as a member of organized labor. There was no particular way that I could particularly expound on what labor’s role was because I wasn’t qualified to do it. I had either been in political office or had been engaged in political organization.
Mr. Velde. Did you know at that time that the Pacific Northwest Labor School was a Communist organization?
Mr. O’Connell. No.
Mr. Velde. What was the date of that?
Mr. Tavenner. 1947.
Mr. O’Connell. I think it was either listed earlier or later but it had been attacked by some of the labor organizations long before it was listed, it had been attacked by some, particularly I think the Central Labor Council in Seattle, and had been attacked by other groups out there.
Mr. Velde. Your suspicion that it was a Communist organization was not the reason you didn’t teach the course?
Mr. O’Connell. I wouldn’t want to say now that is it. I know at the time when he called me about it I objected to the word ideological. I remember that expressly and I objected to the fact that I was qualified in no way to talk about labor’s role in 1948. I was not a member of a trade union, I had not been involved in labor organization or anything of the kind. I know I didn’t teach there and I didn’t——
Mr. Tavenner. What was the meaning of “coordinator” after your name?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. Maybe if you let me look at it—I don’t know what it means.
Mr. Tavenner. Did Mr. Daschbach discuss the title of coordinator with you?
Mr. O’Connell. No; he certainly did not.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show at this time the Communist affiliation of other teachers in this school—Theodore Raymond Astley.
Mr. O’Connell. While you are doing that I wonder if I could say this. When I spoke up and said I knew Mr. Daschbach was a Smith Act defendant there was some remonstrance from over here where the press is located and I wanted to point out I left the State of Washington in 1949 and Mr. Daschbach did not become a Smith Act defendant, if I remember correctly, until 1954.
Mr. Velde. I think that commotion was because they didn’t know how to spell his name.
Mr. Tavenner. The spelling is D-a-s-c-h-b-a-c-h.
Mr. O’Connell. I thought maybe I had left something unexplained.
Mr. Tavenner. Ted Astley was slated to conduct course No. 245, psychology in the social science. He appeared as a witness before the committee and refused to testify, relying on the fifth amendment as to past and present Communist Party membership. He was identified as a member of the Communist Party by Barbara Hartle.
Ruth Bitterman was slated to conduct a course in children’s workshop. She refused to testify as a witness before the committee but was identified by Barbara Hartle as a member of the Communist Party.
Jean Danielson was shown by testimony in our hearings in Seattle to be the same person as Margaret Jean Schuddakoph, and was advertised to conduct course No. 300, as special workshop in reading and writing. She refused to testify before the committee and was identified as a Communist Party member by Barbara Hartle.
Marjorie Daschbach was advertised to conduct course No. 304 and was identified by Barbara Hartle as a member of the Communist Party.
John Davis was advertised to conduct a course on workshop in the graphic arts and was identified before this committee as having been a member of the Communist Party by Barbara Hartle.
Fair Taylor, editor of Union Guardian, was advertised in the catalog to teach a course on labor writer’s workshop. The testimony before the committee shows that she is the same person as Fair Taylor Egroth, and she was identified by Barbara Hartle as having been a member of the Communist Party.
Dr. Ralph Gundlach was advertised to conduct a course of the analysis of employer propaganda. Were you acquainted with Dr. Gundlach?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir. He was a professor at the University of Washington.
Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Gundlach was identified by Harold Sunoo, before this committee, as having been a member of the Communist Party. There was a course conducted on labor news reporting by a person by the name of Pettus. Do you know his first name?
Mr. O’Connell. Do I know his first name?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. As I understand, there were two Pettuses who were newspapermen, Ken Pettus and Terry Pettus, and I am pretty sure the party involved here is the editor of the New World, or does it say? Ken Pettus, I think, was editor of the Stars and Stripes in the Far Eastern area at one time, and then Terry was editor of the New World in Seattle, Terry Pettus.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know which one taught this course on labor news reporting?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I don’t.
Mr. Tavenner. You do not?
Mr. O’Connell. My guess would be that it would be Terry because he was in Seattle but I don’t know whether he actually did.
Mr. Tavenner. Terry Pettus was identified before this committee as having been a member of the Communist Party by Elizabeth Boggs Cohen and Barbara Hartle.
Did Mr. Daschbach when he called you indicate his reason for calling you about teaching this course in the Pacific Northwest Labor School?
Mr. O’Connell. He thought because of my political experience and because of the position, I think I had just shortly concluded my term as executive secretary of the Democratic Party, that was when, in December of 1947.
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
Mr. O’Connell. That was in April of 1947, wasn’t it?
Mr. Tavenner. October to December 1947.
Mr. O’Connell. Anyway, he thought because of my political experience and because of my previous position that I could do a job and that I would be able to do it. When he told me what it was I told him it was in a field that I was not particularly qualified to do.
Mr. Doyle. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)
Mr. Doyle. Let the record show that the legal quorum of the subcommittee is present, Mr. Velde, of Illinois, and Mr. Doyle, of California.
Mr. Tavenner, will you proceed, please.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with Robert Marshall during his lifetime?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I was.
Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you became acquainted with him?
Mr. O’Connell. Robert Marshall at the time of my original acquaintance with him was chief of the reclamation division of the forestry service. He had begun his early career in the forestry service at Missoula, Mont., which was located in my Congressional District, the First or Western Congressional District of Montana.
Shortly after I came back to Washington to take my seat in 1937, Robert Marshall came to my office and introduced himself and told me that because he had started his career in the forestry service out there he had always had an interest in the district particularly because of its large forestry holdings, large forestry provisions, and he and I became close friends, socially, I would say more socially than anything else. I think he died about a year and a half or maybe two years after I—I can’t remember whether he died in 1938 or 1939.
Mr. Tavenner. His will was probated in 1940.
Mr. O’Connell. I think that is correct. His death was probably in 1939.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you one of the witnesses to his will?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he discuss with you at the time of the making of his will or prior thereto the purpose he had in mind in setting up a trust in which you were named as one of the trustees?
Mr. O’Connell. No, he had never discussed—in fact, I really did not know that Bob Marshall had any money. He lived very ordinarily, didn’t give any indication he had any money. I was back out in Butte, Mont., and I had been defeated for Congress and I got a notice from the surrogate court in New York that I was named trustee in the will and I thought I had come into a lot of money. I was sent a copy of the will and I was named as trustee of what later became the Robert Marshall Foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. The will authorized you and the other trustees to apply the income derived from the trust and such parts of the principal as the trustees in their own unlimited discretion deemed necessary for the following objects and purposes:
The education of the people of the United States of America to the necessity and desirability of the development and organization of unions of persons engaged in work or of unemployment and unemployed persons, and the promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use and not for profit.
Did it not?
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. That part of the will which related to the education of the people of the United States to the necessity and desirability of developing and organizing unions of persons engaged in work was actually considered by the trustees as more or less window dressing, wasn’t it?
Mr. O’Connell. No it was the other way around, Mr. Tavenner. I don’t know when Bob Marshall prepared this will, but I think Mr. Doyle would know about this, Upton Sinclair had his so-called epic movement in California, and there was a lot of discussion of an economy based on production for use rather than for profit and in the first meeting of the trustees that we held there was actually a resolution passed where the rather untenable idea of getting a production-for-use economy in the United States was discussed and it was decided by the trustees that the money should actually be employed to develop as much as we could the organization of trade unions, development and organization of trade unions, organizing of unemployed people, and actually for the development of a cooperation between farmers and workers, farmers and labor, so that instead of having a division of interests as far as they were concerned, and the trustees laid down a rule that with reference to grants, that in order to come within what the trustees considered the provisions of the will as the development of trade unions was concerned, that the grants would have to be made for some trade-union purpose, or development of trade unions, and so on, and that was what was actually done by the trustees.
Mr. Tavenner. Were there occasions when grants were made on that theory—on that principle?
Mr. O’Connell. On what principle?
Mr. Tavenner. The one you just named.
Mr. O’Connell. Actually, as far as I can remember—and of course this goes back a long, long time, from 1940 on—I can’t remember all of the organizations but we usually had an annual meeting of the trustees and applications were made to the trustees by practically—I mean just hundreds of organizations around the country that applied to foundations of this kind, and I think, I can’t remember any exceptions, I don’t recall any now.
As closely as we could the applications were considered from the point of view that the money was to be applied by the organization to whom it was granted to help the organization and development of trade unions and organizing of unemployed people and particularly the development of a principle of cooperation between farmers and laborers.
Mr. Tavenner. But actually the will did provide for the use of the money for promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I think another thing that would lend some stability to what I am saying is that I think the tax bureau at one of the local Federal district courts in determining the taxability of the foundation itself actually I think handed down a ruling that the foundation was not entitled to a section 101 exemption because that particular provision actually called for the elimination of the capitalistic system. I think that was the wording used either by the bureau or the court and from that time on the trustees never actually, I can’t think of a single organization or a single group—and we had applications I know, I am trying to think of some of the organizations that existed over that period of time—I can’t recall any of them now who specifically asked for grants based on what they called theory of production for use rather than for profit. But I can’t think of a single instance where the trustees actually made——
Mr. Tavenner. That was actually the system in use in the Soviet Union, was it not?
Mr. O’Connell. I have never been in the Soviet Union and I am not——
Mr. Tavenner. However, you know, that is true, don’t you?
Mr. O’Connell. My information that I get from reading and so on is that there is a modification. I think if I state it correctly in the industrial field I think there is production for use rather than for profit, but as I understand the Soviets have now abandoned as far as particular foreign farm production is concerned——
Mr. Tavenner. Was it not the purpose of the Communist Party in the United States at that time to foist upon this country just such a plan, namely, to establish a Communist system of production for use and not for profit?
Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, wouldn’t be qualified to say, I wouldn’t be qualified to state whether or not that was their purpose or their program.
As a matter of fact, the program of the Communist Party as I remember it before I came to Congress, while I was in Congress and after the program of the Communist Party in the United States was fluctuating—as a matter of fact, I think there was a removal of Browder because he was advocating—removal of Browder by the Communist Party leadership because he was advocating a companionship or partnership with capital and that capital and communism could exist and there could be as I understand it—that was the program of the Communist Party for a long time until he was removed, I can’t remember when.
But I knew Bob Marshall those years—I think I can positively state that Bob Marshall was not a Communist and that the provisions in that will and certainly the people that were named as trustees in addition to the trade union trust as we called it, the Marshall Foundation Trust, there was a civil liberties trust of which I think Roger Baldwin was the head and I think everyone will agree he is decidedly anti-Communist.
There was also a wilderness area trust. In fact, out in the State of Montana there is a great wilderness area named the Robert Marshall Wilderness Area after Robert Marshall.
My distinct feeling about that is that in talking with Bob and talking to him that he was caught up in the period of the depression situation where there were all kinds of economic theories advanced at the time, not only New Deal but all kinds of other movements and I don’t think there was actually any connection in Bob Marshall’s mind between what the Communist Party might be advocating at that time and what he actually put in his will.
Mr. Doyle. May I ask this about that will? Was it a typewritten will or a will written by him?
Mr. O’Connell. Actually his brother, Jim Marshall, is an attorney in the city of New York and I think a member of the New York City Board of Education and the will was actually prepared by Jim Marshall’s firm, I can’t remember all who are in it, but the copy which I got was actually a copy of the will which I received through the surrogate court in New York, actually a printed form.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you mentioned the fact that tax exempt status of the trust was removed by action of the court. Was that a result of action taken by the Internal Revenue Bureau?
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it after the Internal Revenue Bureau learned of the type of grants being made under this trust that it took the action it did to remove the tax exemption status of the trust?
Mr. O’Connell. My best recollection, Mr. Tavenner, is that Congressman Dies made a speech on the floor, and if I remember correctly, in which he discussed the Robert Marshall Foundation in which he went into the various grants that we had made and shortly after that, on whose initiative I don’t know, the Bureau took up with the foundation the matter of its one exemption and the Bureau exemption was removed and I believe as trustees we appealed it to the courts and the courts decided against us.
We appealed, I am sure the briefs will show that we appealed to the courts on the basis that the grants were being made for the purpose of organizing and developing of trade unions and for organization of unemployed people and not for the theory of production for use rather than for profit. I am sure the briefs will bear me out on that. I of course had nothing to do with the preparation of them.
George Marshall, who is Bob Marshall’s brother, was the manager of the trust funds and as I said, the trustees usually met annually, once a year.
Mr. Tavenner. You were aware, were you not, that the Communist Party in the State of Washington just 2 years prior to the probate of this will, endeavored or at least proposed a plan for legislation to set up exactly the same type of economy in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew nothing about that. The first time I ever went to the State of Washington in August 1944——
Mr. Tavenner. Robert Marshall you say was from the State of Montana?
Mr. O’Connell. No, Robert Marshall was actually a New Yorker, his dad was Louis Marshall, a partner of Samuel Untermyer, outstanding corporation lawyer in New York.
Mr. Tavenner. Was a great deal of his experience in the forestry service on the west coast?
Mr. O’Connell. No; 3 years of his service in the Forestry Department were at Missoula, Mont., but not on the west coast. We are in the Rocky Mountain area, you see.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand.
Mr. O’Connell. Is this within the scope of the hearing?
Mr. Velde. The Robert Marshall Foundation?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Velde. I think it would be.
Mr. Doyle. We will take a short recess.
(Brief recess.)
(Committee members present after recess: Representatives Doyle and Scherer.)
Mr. Doyle. The committee will come to order and let the record show that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walter, appointed a different subcommittee to continue this hearing today, consisting of Mr. Moulder, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and that Mr. Scherer and Mr. Doyle are both present, a legal majority of the new subcommittee.
Mr. O’Connell, will you please rise and be sworn again.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. O’Connell. I do.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, I referred to the proposal sponsored by the Communist Party in the State of Washington in 1936 for the enactment of a law establishing production-for-use initiative as it was called.
Mr. O’Connell. That was stolen from Upton Sinclair’s legislation.
Mr. Tavenner. And possibly also from the Soviet Union.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t propose to speak for the Soviet Union.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you propose to speak for Mr. Upton Sinclair?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew Mr. Sinclair quite well and he used to contribute to my campaign and I had some opportunity to see his campaign in California.
Mr. Tavenner. Eugene V. Dennett described a convention of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, held in April 1936 in Everett, Wash., and the part that the Communist Party played in that convention. His testimony relating to this particular matter is as follows:
There was another matter which arose as a serious issue in that convention and it concerned a proposal for an initiative measure which became known as the production-for-use initiative. Many people, because of the Communist Party influence in the unemployed days, were quite concerned and alarmed over the problem of unemployment, insecurity, possible impoverishment, et cetera. All the consequences of economic dislocation. They had read many of the so-called utopian pieces of literature such as Bellamy’s Looking Backward and other documents of the kind. They had also read Mr. Upton Sinclair’s Program in California. They were somewhat acquainted with the propaganda of the Soviet Union to the effect that production for use was the solution to the problems of capitalist lack of planning. In other words, planned economy.
The story on the production-for-use initiative is simply this: Because there was such a popular demand for some change in the economic situation to assure continued production and a cooperative effort, many people tried to translate an ideal of a cooperative commonwealth into some form of legislative effort. This resulted in many conferences and the calling in of legal talent to try to draft a measure which would be legal and which would satisfy the ambitions of the people to have the so-called dream of a cooperative commonwealth organization.
Question. Now, at that point describe a little more fully what production for use meant in a practical sense.
Mr. Dennett. I wish I could satisfy you completely on that point, because that is one of the problems we ran into in trying to draw up this initiative measure. We could never satisfy ourselves that we had it satisfactorily organized. However, the staff who worked on it worked long and hard and finally produced a measure which was known as the production-for-use initiative. It was ready for presentation to that convention. However, some of us in the Communist Party, while we agreed that such a measure was a good propaganda weapon and felt that it was an excellent means of popularizing the ideas which we understood and claimed were the basis of the operation of the economy in the Soviet Union, we were startled when we read the document and found that it sounded a little bit more like the Fascist corporate state that the Italian leader Mussolini had established. We became so alarmed about it and we were so perplexed that we asked a very world famous person who happened to be a guest of the convention what this person thought about it. The person to whom I refer is Anna Louise Strong, who had just come from the Soviet Union, extended greetings to the convention and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her travels and won wide acclaim for that effort.
Question. Did she on the floor of the convention address herself to the problem of production for use?
Mr. Dennett. She did not. Not at that moment. She spoke only in general terms about the referring to it in a complimentary way and hoping for success, but at that moment she did not know very much about what was in that document. However, we felt that she, coming from the Soviet Union with fresh knowledge, might know quite a lot about it and might be able to assist us in revising the document so that it would be possible to satisfy us that it was in fact a step in the right direction of a cooperative commonwealth. So she consented very graciously to take the document and work on it overnight. She did exactly that and we read it the next morning and much to our surprise she had moved the emphasis in the control even more in the direction of top control and less in the direction of allowing the members or the organization to have anything to say about it, which was just the reverse of the trend that we had hoped for.
Consequently we began to ask ourselves, that is, the Communists asked themselves, if this is the end result of an effort to draw up an initiative maybe it would be smarter politically for us to see that the measure died a-borning. Consequently we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to draw up an initiative measure which would be adequate and which would answer our propaganda needs and our desires to satisfy us that it was in harmony with our program. So we embarked upon a campaign in the course of the election.
Question. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed bill or to defeat it?
Mr. Dennett. We all went out presumably to win support, to get the measure adopted. That is, it was an initiative measure and it was before the voters. The voters were to cast a vote “yes” or “no” on this initiative. The Communist Party found itself in that predicament.
We were committed to support the measure but we were determined to bring about its defeat. Consequently, we campaigned far and wide all over the State of Washington explaining the measure in such a way as to convince the people that they should not vote for it. At the same time we represented ourselves as campaigning for the measure and we did it so successfully that the measure was defeated. If we had not have done it I am afraid it would have been adopted.
Mr. O’Connell. Sounds like he needs a mental examination.
Mr. Tavenner. I think it is rather consistent with Communist Party tactics.
Mr. Dennett. My counsel asked me who was “we.” I am referring to the Communist Party in that instance, the leaders of the Washington Commonwealth Federation were terribly disturbed by the nature of the campaign we were carrying on—that is, the Communists.
Question. I should think it would be a rather confusing campaign where the Communist Party in order to defeat it actually supported it.
Mr. Dennett. That is true. It was a very confusing to every one, even to us at times.
Question. That is a very interesting thing. The Communist Party in order to defeat this measure went out and conducted a statewide campaign in favor of it but in order to accomplish its defeat, if I understand you correctly, it so represented the issues that people would be bound to vote against it.
Mr. Dennett. That is true. There is triple deception in this maneuver, which is rather hard to follow. I hope I have explained it.
Question. I am afraid that the point may not be absolutely clear in the record, and I want to be sure that it is clear.
If I understand you correctly, it was not the fact that the Communist Party was supporting this measure that caused its defeat.
Mr. Dennett. You are correct, sir; that was not the reason. It was the way we as disguised Communists carried on the campaign, ostensibly for it, but in fact against it.
Question. In other words, your representations were of such a character as to make known the weaknesses in the bill and the person would actually think you were supporting it.
Mr. Dennett. True. You understand it quite clearly.
Question. I hope so. I think the bill was properly named when you used the word “initiative” because that certainly is the use of initiative. I am glad to know it is Communist Party initiative. It is a very deceptive type of campaign.
That was the history of production for use as first sponsored by the Communist Party until they found that it was not workable to reduce to a form of legislative enactment in the State of Washington.
Mr. O’Connell. In 1936.
Mr. Tavenner. In 1936.
And yet the will of Robert Marshall was prepared 2 years later in 1938, and it embraces the same principle of the promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use. And you were one of the trustees of that foundation.
Do you know of any connection or any influence brought upon Robert Marshall to establish this trust fund for the changing of the system of economy in the United States which had its origin in the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I know absolutely none. As I said earlier, and I am sure Bob had no connection with the Washington situation that you have read about in detail. I think like a great many others in that depression period, there were all kinds of discussions of panaceas to solve the economic situation that existed at the time. I am positive that Bob Marshall was not a member of the Communist Party, that he was not influenced by the Communists in the preparation of that will or the provisions that are in it, and as a trustee I want to assure you that I can’t think of a single instance, a single instance where any grant of any money was made to any organization to begin an economy based on production for use or propagandize it or publicize it or anything.
I can remember at one time the National Farmers Union came to the foundation, Mr. Patton, the national president, particularly presented the proposal and wanted to establish branch centers throughout the United States trying to some extent bring about what he called a cooperative movement and an economy based upon cooperatives. I think he wanted an immediate expenditure of some $160,000 and it was rejected by the trustees. I know that.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Lem Harris?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I was not acquainted with Lem Harris.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know him?
Mr. O’Connell. I think I know who he is. Wasn’t he in the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Tavenner. He was in the Department of Agriculture. He spent many years in the Soviet Union, studying and working in the field of agriculture. He was prominent in organizations interested in agriculture in this country. He was before this committee and refused to testify as to his prior or present Communist Party membership, relying upon the fifth amendment. He was considered the head of the agricultural division of the Communist Party in the United States.
Did he importune in behalf of the National Farmers Union in procuring grants?
Mr. O’Connell. He particularly never talked to me or never asked me to do it. I don’t know whether——
Mr. Tavenner. You don’t need to put it on such a personal basis. As a trustee you know whether he did or did not.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. As a trustee, Gardner Jackson, who I think was employed by the National Farmers Union, actually talked more and actually guided the trust or the foundation as far as agricultural matters were concerned, and I, of course, all I—I never met Lem Harris.
Mr. Tavenner. You wouldn’t have to meet Lem Harris to know what influence he had to bear upon the making of grants by your trustees.
Mr. O’Connell. I know of no influence he had, particularly as far as I am concerned. He never importuned me at any time to vote for anybody or grant any money to any organization.
Mr. Tavenner. Gardner Jackson is alleged to have written a letter on August 3, 1946, to James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers Union. Mr. Lem Harris admitted that he had seen a copy of that letter when he testified before this committee. In this letter to Mr. Patton, Gardner Jackson makes this statement:
I don’t have to tell you that many of us understand your appointment of the pathetic Communist or pro-Communist boy Phil Reno to your headquarters staff in Denver as political and labor relations official was at the behest of George Marshall and Lem Harris, the Communist Party’s avowed agricultural policy fellow, in order to insure a continuing flow of money from the Marshall Foundation to the National Farmers Union.
Doesn’t that prove to you the influence that was exerted by the Communist Party upon awards made to the National Farmers Union?
Mr. O’Connell. That, of course, is a statement made by Gardner Jackson, I think after he had been removed from his position with the Farmers Union, and in which he supplied information to Senator Bridges, I think, and I can’t remember others, but what influence—for instance I don’t even know who Phil Reno is, don’t know anything about him, and what Jackson is attempting there I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. You had a responsibility as one of the trustees to know how the awards were being paid.
Mr. O’Connell. That is right and, as a matter of fact, the foundation called Patton before it because we got in disagreement with him about the way the funds were being expended and from then on grants were made to the various State organizations of the Farmers Union rather than to the national office directly.
Mr. Tavenner. But they were continued?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, they were actually made to different State farm union organizations but not to the National Farmers Union, not to Patton. And certainly one of the basic reasons was because of this gigantic proposal that he had about establishing these branch centers. We just didn’t think it was a wise expenditure of the foundation’s funds, and so on, and that was some of the disagreement that we had.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever see a copy of the letter which I referred to?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never did.
Mr. Tavenner. Had you heard of it?
Mr. O’Connell. I think the way I heard of it, I don’t know whether this is the same letter, but Senator Bridges made a speech on the floor of the Senate I think in 1950 in which I am pretty sure he quoted or actually inserted the Gardner Jackson letter, if I remember, and I think I read it within Senator Bridges remarks at that time that were on the floor.
Now, I remember that there was quite a to-do about it. I was out in the State of Montana at that time. I have been close. I have known the Farm Union leadership and members out there and I know they were exercised and committed and worried about this whole development.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall from that letter, and the discussions which you have just mentioned, that Lem Harris, whom I have identified from the committee files as a person prominent in the agricultural section of the Communist Party, was himself attempting to decide what awards or what grants the trustees of the foundation should make to the National Farmers Union?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall as far as I am concerned any influence on me. I voted as far as I was concerned on those grants the way I wanted to.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand that, but I am asking you about your knowledge and what you learned in the course of the performance of your duties as a trustee.
Mr. O’Connell. As far as Lem Harris was concerned, I never heard anything about Lem Harris’ influence or anything.
Mr. Tavenner. You have just told us there was a great disturbance in 1950 when this information became public.
Mr. O’Connell. Over the Gardner Jackson letter; yes.
Mr. Tavenner. So you did not know something about it in 1950?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; but I mean from 1950 on there had been no meetings of the Robert Marshall Foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me quote further from this same letter, in which Mr. Gardner Jackson is addressing Mr. Patton:
I do not have to recall to your mind—
meaning Mr. Patton’s mind—
Lem Harris’ visit to you in Denver a few years ago to tell you that of the total amount of money remaining in the Marshall Foundation, the National Farmers Union would be allowed so much and to ask you as president of the National Farmers Union how you wanted that sum spread over the ensuing few years.
Lem Harris is not a trustee of that fund.
Do you know anything about that? Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I was not close to Patton of course. I don’t know what he was doing as far as Lem Harris was concerned, I mean I just don’t know anything about that. I am telling you that very frankly.
Mr. Tavenner. You have been very positive in your statements that no awards or grants were made by this foundation which might be construed as being grants to or for the benefit of the Communist Party. That has been the inference of your testimony.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, that is what I am trying—of course the questions all have been with reference to the economic system based on production for use rather than for profit.
Mr. Tavenner. That is right.
Mr. O’Connell. And all that.
Mr. Tavenner. You trustees had very broad powers to determine what organization you would aid in the purpose of this trust which was, namely, to promote an economic system in the United States based upon profit for use. I am trying to find out how you exercised those broad powers.
Mr. O’Connell. Those powers were exercised by different trustees.
Mr. Tavenner. Of which you were one.
Mr. O’Connell. Of which I was one. All of us exercised I am sure our independent judgment on it. If it were possible to bring them all here, I don’t have them, but there were many instances where the trustees divided, where these grants were made by majority vote rather than by full vote and so on.
There are all kinds of situations that exist. But as far as I am concerned, Lem Harris never influenced me to make a grant to the Farmers Union or to any organization.
Mr. Tavenner. Don’t misunderstand me again. My question is broader than the influencing of you. My question is whether or not it influenced the action of the trustees.
Mr. O’Connell. Of course I don’t know whether Lem Harris went out and met with Jim Patton and Gardner Jackson, who was a trustee. I don’t know whether that actually took place. I don’t know whether he did these other things that are said. I don’t know whether he did them or not, but if he did those things and Jackson was going along then he had some influence and so on. But I think Jim Patton became leader of the National Farmers Union after I left Congress. I never got to know him real well, I think I have been introduced to him maybe once or twice. I know that Jim Patton was displeased with some of my votes on the foundation which were evidently reported to him by Jackson and went to the leadership of the Farmers Union in Montana to try to exercise influence as far as I was concerned in my votes on the foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any other groups attempting to influence your judgment or decision in the matter of making grants?
Mr. O’Connell. Any other groups?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; or individuals.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, over the period of years from 1940 on down there were all kinds of grants made and there have been various individuals who have come to me in connection with them.
Mr. Tavenner. And many of those people were leaders in notorious Communist-front organizations; weren’t they?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, of course I don’t go along with your description of notorious Communist-front organizations. Many of the people came to me and asked me to vote for grants for causes and for principles which I thought were right and which I thought ought to be done, and if they were right in my opinion I thought they were right, I voted for them and if they were not I voted against them.
Mr. Tavenner. Well, for instance, was a grant made of $20,000 to be used in the payment of attorney’s fees for the defense of William Robert Remington?
Mr. O’Connell. Not by the Marshall Foundation, by the trust funds that I was a trustee of. We certainly made no grant.
Mr. Tavenner. Was any money of the foundation——
Mr. O’Connell. I think, isn’t that in connection with the civil-liberties trust? It is not in connection with the trade-union trust. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Tavenner. That was paid out from another fund in the same trust, not from the one in which——
Mr. O’Connell. No. The will established, I think I can explain it, the will established three trusts, one that was called the Robert Marshall Foundation, we were denoted always as the trade-union trust. The second trust was a civil-liberties trust and 5 trustees, not all of the 5 trustees on the trade-union trust, were trustees on the civil-liberties trust. There were 15.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you on both?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was only on the trade union trust.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of the payment from this other trust—that is, the civil-liberties trust—of the grant of $20,000 for defense of Remington?
Mr. O’Connell. I know nothing about it except, was that contained in Mr. Dies’ speech? Was that reported——
Mr. Tavenner. No.
Mr. O’Connell. I really personally have no—I am not a member of that civil-liberties trust and I don’t know. There is also a wilderness area trust that is set up in the will and I am not a trustee on that fund either.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the only fund of which you were a trustee the one which provided for the promotion of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use?
Mr. O’Connell. Which the trustees abandoned and decided to eliminate at the very first meeting of the trustees that was held.
Mr. Tavenner. Let us see the nature of the grants and we can determine more about whether they did actually abandon it or not. How long did this trust continue to operate? How long was it active?
Mr. O’Connell. I think we actually made grants from, if I remember correctly, 1940 until 1950. I am not sure whether we made any grants in 1950 or not. We have not met in the last 5 years, I know that. If I remember correctly, there is approximately $41,000 left in the fund of which I am a trustee and there have been no meetings of the trustees in at least the last 4 or 5 years.
Mr. Tavenner. The committee has information that grants were made in 1941 and 1942 by the Robert Marshall Foundation to the American Youth Congress for the total of $10,250. Do you know who solicited those grants?
Mr. O’Connell. No. An actual application would be made to Mr. George Marshall as manager of the trust by the organization that was involved—by the American Youth Congress. I can’t recall the reason for the grant. My offhand guess would be that the American Youth Congress was proposing to establish some kind of a labor secretary or labor division of the Youth Congress or something, and they would tie it in actually to the provision of the will as far as the trade union, development of trade unions were concerned, organization of unemployed youth, I imagine.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you, as a trustee, do anything to ascertain how the money was being used after the grants were made?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never did actually as a trustee. We had the organization report to us from time to time how they were expending the funds and what they were doing, but I couldn’t personally take any one of those grants and tell you actually what the report was.
Mr. Tavenner. The American Youth Congress has been cited as a subversive and Communist organization by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and September 21, 1948, under a citation by Attorney General Francis Biddle September 24, 1942, and also, May 28, 1942, it was stated in the citation that—
It originated in 1934 and has been controlled by the Communists and manipulated by them to influence the thought of American youth.
It was cited by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities June 29, 1942, January 3, 1939, January 3, 1941, and again on March 29, 1944, in which it was stated that it was one of the principal fronts of the Communist Party and prominently identified with the White House picket line under the immediate auspices of the American Peace Mobilization.
Do you know whether Jack R. McMichael was the national chairman of the American Youth Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. I couldn’t recall—the name doesn’t mean anything to me.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he play any part in the solicitation of these grants?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, he didn’t at least to me. If his name was on the stationery, I got a copy of the application and all that, but——
Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain that he was its president at the time those grants were made, but he may have been.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. During the same period, according to the committee’s information, grants totaling $3,250 were made to the Federated Press.
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. And subsequently increased to a total of $29,200.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether those totals are correct, but I know grants were made consistently to the Federated Press.
Mr. Tavenner. Were the grants sufficiently large to make these figures within reason?
Mr. O’Connell. I would say they are. They never got a large grant each year. I think they got small grants like $3,500 or something of that kind. It could have totaled $29,000 over the years.
Mr. Tavenner. That organization was cited on March 29, 1944, by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities as a Communist-controlled organization financed by the American Fund for Public Service and the Robert Marshall Foundation, both principal sources of funds for Communist enterprises.
Mr. O’Connell. There are a lot of conclusions drawn there that need proof.
Mr. Tavenner. I think we are proceeding to prove it right now.
Mr. O’Connell. Federated Press was a press service that operated in the labor field. It supplied labor papers throughout the country with labor news, news about labor, and about things labor was doing and we thought certainly was entitled to a grant from the point of view of development and organization of trade unions.
Mr. Tavenner. It was a principal supplier of the Daily Worker and the Daily People’s World.
Mr. O’Connell. I wouldn’t know, but I would presume that they probably——
Mr. Tavenner. You didn’t inquire?
Mr. O’Connell. Probably did. As far as I was concerned the Federated Press was doing an excellent job in the labor field. As a Congressman, of course, I had excellent opportunity to get all of the labor newspapers and the labor newspapers particularly in my district, and they were getting news from the Federated Press that covered a want that was sorely needed as far as labor information was concerned.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you know that the American Youth Congress had been cited as a Communist-front organization at the time you acted upon——
Mr. O’Connell. By whom?
Mr. Tavenner. By the Attorney General of the United States, both Attorney General Clark and Attorney General Biddle and by this committee.
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, I am pretty sure I had knowledge they were cited by Attorney General Clark and by Attorney General Biddle or by any other attorney general, but that didn’t determine in my mind——
Mr. Tavenner. That did not serve to put you on inquiry?
Mr. O’Connell. That did not serve as far as I was concerned to make it conclusive by any means, and if I in my personal opinion thought they were doing a good job and doing a job within the provisions of this will and so on, I voted for it.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you have made a grant to the Communist Party in the State of Washington which as shown by the testimony I read to you was interested in enacting into law the same principle under which this trust was being operated?
Mr. O’Connell. I told you that at the very beginning, at the very first meeting that the trustees held, that we voted not to make any grants that were asked for on the basis of being used for the promotion of an economy based on production for use rather than for profit.
Mr. Tavenner. That would have been in violation of the provisions of the will, wouldn’t it?
Mr. O’Connell. No, sir; we made our grants within the first provisions, within the provision that provided for the development and the organization of workers and unemployed persons and so on. We made it a strictly trade-union trust.
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you entirely disregarded this provision?
Mr. O’Connell. And if the Communist Party or the Democratic Party or Republican Party or any partisan organization came and asked for funds they wouldn’t have gotten it.
Mr. Tavenner. But if it was an organization which the leadership of the Communist Party had captured and had under its control, it would be perfectly all right to make an award?